Relcrm and Purity in Government— Neutral Duties. 



Sale of Arms to Belligerent France. 

671 



S953 
opv 1 



SPEECH 



HON. CHARLES SUMNER, 

OF MA^SSA.CHUSETTS, 



DELIVERED 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 



FEBRUARY 28, 1872. 




WASHINGTON: 
F. & J. RIVES & GEO. A.. BAILEY, 

BEPORTBRS AND PRINTEUS OF TUE DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
1872. 



. 5«^ 53 






Reform and Purity in Government — Neutral Duties. 
Sale of Arms to Belliserent France. 



The Senate having under consideration the reso- 
lution of Mr. Sumner to inquire into the sale of 
arms to Franco- 
Mr. SUMNER said: 

Mr. President: Besides the unaccustomed 
interest which this debate excites, I can- 
not fail to note that it has wandered far beyond 
any purpose of mine, and into fields where I 
have no desire to follow. In a few plain re- 
marks I shall try to bring it back to the real 
issue, which I hope to present without passion 
or prejudice. I declare only the rule of my 
life when I say that nothing shall fall from me 
to-day which is not prompted by the love of 
truth and the desire for justice ; but you will 
pardon me if I remember that there is some- 
thing on this planet higher than the Senate or 
any Senator, higher than any public function- 
ary, higher than any political party : it is the 
good name of the American people and the 
purity of Government, which must be saved 
from scandal. In this spirit and with this 
aspiration I shall speak today. 

In considering this resolution we must not 
forget the peculiar demands of the present 
moment. An aroused community in the com- 
mercial metropolis of our country has unex- 
pectedly succeeded in overthrowing a corrupt 
ring by which millions of money had been 
sacrificed. Tammany has been vanquished. 
Here good Democrats vied with Republicans. 
The country was thrilled by the triumph, and 
insisted that it should be extended. Then 
came manifestations against abuses of the 
civil service generally, and especially in that 
other Tammany, the New York custom-house. 
The call for investigation at last prevailed in 
this Chamber, and the newspapers have been 



burdened since with odious details. Every- 
body says there must be reform, so that the 
Government in all its branches shall be above 
suspicion. The cry for reform is everywhere — 
j from New York to New Orleans. Within a 
I few days we hear of a great meeting, amount- 
' ing to ten thousand, in the latter city, with- 
out distinction of party, calling for reform; 
and the demand is echoed from place to place. 
j Reform is becoming a univer.sal watchword. 
I In harmony with tbiscry is the appointment 
of a Civil Service Commission which has pro- 
posed mild measures looking to purity and 
independence in officeholders. 

Amidst these transactions, occupying the 
attention of the country, certain facts are re- 
ported, tending to show abuses in the sale of 
arms at the Ordnance Office, exciting at least 
suspicion in that quarter, and this is aggra- 
vated by a seeming violation of neutral duties 
at a critical moment, when on various grounds 
the nation was bound to peculiar care. It 
appeared as if our neutral duties were sacri- 
ficed to money-making, if not to official job- 
bers. The injunction of lago seemed to be 
obeyed: "But put money in thy purse." 
These things were already known in Europe, 
especially through a notorious trial and then 
by a legislative inquiry, so as to become a 
j public scandal. It was time that something 
I should be done to remove the suspicion. This 
could only be by a searching investigation in 
such way as to satisfy all at home and abroad 
that there was no whitewashing. 

In proportion to t'le magnitude of the ques- 
tion and the great interests involved, whether 
of money or neutral duty, was the correspond- 
ing responsibility on our part. Here was a 
case ior action without deluy. 



Under these circumstances I brought forward 
the present motion. Here I acted in entire 
harmony with that movement, now so much ap- 
plauded, which overthrew Tammany, and that 
other movement which has exposed the Cus- 
tom-House. Its object was inquiry into the 
sale of arms. This was the objective point. 
But much of this debate has turned on points 
merely formal, if not entirely irrelevant. 

More than once it has been asserted that I 
am introducing "politics," and then we have 
been reminded of the Presidential election, 
which, to certain Senators, is a universal 
prompter. I ask for reform, and the Senator 
from Indiana [Mr. Morton] seizing the party 
bugle sounded "To arms." But I am not 
tempted to follow him. I have nothing to say 
of the President or of the Presidential election. 
The Senator cannot make me depart from the 
rule I have laid down for myself 1 introduce 
no " politics," but only a question which has 
become urgent, affecting the civil service of 
the country. 

Now, sir, I have been from the beginning in 
favor of civil service reform. I am the author 
of the first bill on that subject ever introduced 
into Congress, as long ago as the winter of 
1864. I am for a real reform that shall reach 
the highest as well as the lowest, and I know 
no better way to accomplish this beneficent 
result than by striving at all times for purity 
in the administration of Government. There- 
fore, when oflBcials fail under suspicion, I should 
feel myself disloyal to the Government if I did 
not insist on the most thorough inquiry. So 
I have voted in the past, so I must vote in the 
future. Call you this politics? Not in the 
ordinary sense of the term. It is only hon- 
esty and a just regard for the public weal. 

Then it has been said that I am a French 
agent, and even a Prussian agent — two in one. 
Sir, I am nothing but a Senator, whose atten- 
tion was first called to this matter by a dis- 
tinguished citizen not named in this debate. 
Since then I have obtained such information 
with regard to it as was open to me — all going 
to develop a case for inquiry. 

I should say nothing more in reply to this 
allegation but for the vindictive personal as- 
sault made upon a valued friend, the Mr.rquis 
<ie Chambrun. The Senator from Mis>souri 



[Mr. SciiURz] has already spoken for him, 
but I claim this privilege also. Besides his 
own merits this gentleman is commended to 
Americans by his association with the two 
Fretich names most cherished in our country, 
La Fayette and DeTocqueville. I have known 
him from the very day of his arrival in Wash- 
ington early in the spring of 1805, and have 
seen him since, in unbroken friendship, almost 
daily. Shortly after his arrival I took him 
with me on a visit to Mr. Lincoln at the front, 
close upon the capture of Richmond. This 
stranger began his remarkable intimacy with 
American life by several days in the society 
of the President only one week before his 
death. He was by the side of the President 
in his last visit to a military hospital, and when 
he last shook hands with the soldiers. Also 
when he made his last speech from the window 
of the Executive Mansion, the stranger was 
his guest standing by his side. From that 
time down to this day of accusation his inti- 
macies have extended beyond those of any 
other foreigner. His studies of our institu- 
tions have been minute and critical, being 
second only to those of his late friend De 
Tocqueville. Whether conversing on his own 
country or on ours, he is always at home. 

If at any time the Marquis de Chambrun 
sustained oificial relations with the French 
Government, or was its agent, he never spoke 
of it to me : nor did I ever know it until the 
papers produced by the Senator from Iowa. 
Our conversation was always that of friends, 
and on topics of general interest, not of busi- 
ness. Though ignorant of any official rela- 
tions with his own Government, I could not 
fail to know his close relations with members 
of our Government, ending in his recent 
employment to present our case in French 
for the Geneva tribunal, an honorable and 
confidential service, faithfully performed. 

The Senator from Indiana knew of the arms 
question some five months before the meeting 
ot Congress. I did not. It v/as after the session 
began, and just before the holidays, that I first 
knew of it. And here my informant was not 
a foreigner, but, as I have alrealy said, a dis- 
tinguished citizen. The French "spy," as he 
is so happily called, though with me daily,, 
never spoke of it ; nor did I speak of it to him. 
By and by the Senator from Missouri men- 
tioned it, and then in my desire to know tke 



5 



evidence affecting persons here, if any 
such existed, I spoke to my French friend. 
This was only a few days before the resolu- 
tion. 

Such is the history of ray relations with the 
accused. There is nothing to disguise ; noth- 
ing that I should not do again. I know no 
rule of senatorial duty or of patriotism which 
can prevent me from obtaining information 
of any kind from anybody, especially when 
the object is to pursue fraud and to unmask 
abuse. Is not a French gentleman a compe- 
tent witness? Once the black could not tes- 
tify against the white, and now in some places 
the testimony of a Chinese is rejected. But 
I tolerate no such exclusion. Let me welcome 
knowledge always, and from every quarter. 
Hail holy light! no matter from what star or 
what nation it may shine ! 

And this gentleman, fresh from a confidential 
service to our own Government, enjoying num- 
erous intimacies with American citizens, asso- 
ciated with illustrious names in history and 
literature, and immediately connected with 
one of the highest functionaries of the pres- 
ent French Government, M. de R6musat, min- 
ister for foreign affairs, is insulted here as an 
"emissary" and a "spy;" nay, more, France 
is insulted, for these terms are applied only to 
the secret agents of an enemy in time of war. 
But enough. To such madness of error and 
vindictive accusation is this defense carried. 

Another charge is that I am making a case 
for Prussia against our own country. Oh ! 
uo. I am making a case for nobody. I sim- 
ply try to relieve my country from an odious 
suspicion and to advance the cause of good 
government. The Senator from Indiana sup- 
poses that this effort of mine, having such 
objects, niay prejudice the emperor of Ger- 
many against us in the arbitration of the San 
Juan question. The Senator does not pay a 
lofty compliment to that enlightened and vic- 
torious ruler. Nay, sir, the very suggestion 
of the Senator is an insult to him, which he is 
too just to resent, but which cannot fail to 
excite a smile of derision. Surely the Sen- 
ator was not in earnest. 

The jest of the Senator, offered for argu- 
ment, seoms to forget that all these things are 
notorious in Europe, through the active press 
of Paris and London. Why, sir, our own 



State Department furnishes official evidence 

that the alleged sale of arms to the French 

by our Government is known in Berlin itself, 

right under the eyes of the emperor. Our 

minister there, Mr. Bancroft, in his dispatch 

of January 7, 1871, furnishes the following 

testimony from the London Times: 

" During the Crimean war, arms and munitions of 
war had been freely exported from Pruaaia to Rus- 
sia; and recently, rilled cannon and ammunition 
have been furnished to the French in enormous quan- 
tities, not only by prirntc American traders, but by the 
Vfar Department at Washington." 

These latter words are italicized in the offi- 
cial publication of our Government, and thus 
blazoned to the world, I do not adduce them 
to show that the War Department did sell 
arms to belligerent France ; but that even in 
Berlin the imputation upon us was known and 
actually reported by our minister. If the latter 
made any observations on this imputation, I 
know not ; for at this point in his dispatch are 
those convenient asterisks which are the sub- 
stitute, for inconvenient revelations. 

In the same spirit with the last triviality, but 
in the anxiety to clutch at something, it is said 
that the Alabama claims are endangered by 
this inquiry. Very well, sir. On this point I 
am clear. If these historic claims, so interest- 
ing.to the American people, are to be pressed at 
the cost of purity in ourown Government, they 
are not worth the terrible price. Better give 
them up at once. Let them all go, every dol- 
lar. -'First pure and then peaceable ;'■ above 
all things purity. .Sir, I have from the beginning 
insisted that England aliould be held to just 
account for her violation of international duty 
toward us. Is that any reason why I sliould 
not also insist upon inquiry into the conduct of 
officials at home to the end thai the Government 
may be saved from reproach? Surely we shall 
be stronger — infinitely stronger — in demanding 
our own rights, if we show a determination to 
allow no wrong among ourselves. Our example 
must not be quoted against us at any time. 
Especially must it not be allowed to harden 
into precedent. But this can be prevented 
only by prompt correction, so that it shall be 
withoutauthority. Therefore, because I would 
have my country irresistible in its demands do 
I insist that it'shall place itself above all sus- 
picion. 

The objection of Senators is too much like 
the old heathen c;y, ''Our country, right or 



wrong.*' Unhappy words, which dethrone 
God and exilt the Devil I I am for our coun- 
ti7 with the aspiration that it may be always 
right ; but I am for nothing wrong. When I 
hear of wrong, I insist at all hazards that it 
shall be made right, knowing that in this way 
1 best serve my country and every just 
cause. 

This same objection assumes another form 
equally groundless when it is said that I re- 
flect upon our country and hurt its good name. 
Oh, nol They reflect upon our country, and 
hurt its good name who at the first breath of 
suspicion fail to act. Our good name is not 
to be preserved by covering up anything. 
Not in secrecy but in daylight zanst we live. 
What sort of good name is that which has a 
cloud gathering about it? Our duty is to dis- 
pel the cloud. Especially is this the duty of 
the Senate. Here at least must be that hon- 
est independence which shall insist at all 
times upon purity in the Government, no 
matter what officeholders are exposed. 

Again it is said that our good name cannot 
be compromised by these suspicions. This is 
a mistake. Any suspicion of wrong is a com- 
promise, all the more serious when it concerns 
not only money but the violation of neutral 
obligations. And the actual fact is precisely 
according to reason. Now while we debate, 
the national character is compromised at 
Paris, at London, at Berlin, at Geneva, where 
all these things are known as touch as in this 
Chamber. But your indifference, especially 
after this debate, will not tend to elevate the 
national character either at home or abroad. 

Such are some of the objections to which 
I reply. They are words only, as Hamlet 
says, " Words, words, words." From words 
let us pass to things. 

Mr. President, 1 come now to the simple 
question before the Senate, which I presented 
originally, whether there is not sufiicient rea- 
son for inquiry into the sale of arms during 
the French and German war? I state the 
question thus broadly. The inquiry is into 
the sale of arms; and this opens two ques- 
tions, first, of international duty, and secondly, 
of misfeasance in our officials, the latter involv- 



ing what may be compendiously called the 
money question. 

My object is simply to show grounds for 
inquiry; and I naturally begin with the rule 
of international duty. 

In the discharge of neutral obligations a 
nation is bound to good faith. This is the 
supreme rule to which all else is subordinate. 
This is the starting point of all that is done. 
Without good faith neutral obligations must 
fail. In proportion to the character of this 
requirement must be the completeness of its 
observance. There can be no evasion, not a 
jot. Any evasion is a breach, without the 
bravery of open violation. But evasion may 
be sometimes, by closing the eyes to existing 
facts, or even by acting without sufficient in- 
quiry. These things are so plain and entirely 
reasonable as to be self-evident. 

Now, nothing can be more clear than that 
no neutral nation is permitted to furnish arms 
and war material to a belligerent Power. 
Such is a simple statement of the law. I do 
not cite authorities, as I did it amply on a 
former occasion. But there is an excellent 
author whom I would add to the list as worthy 
of consideration, especially at this moment in 
view of the loose pretensions put forth in the 
debate. I refer to Mr. Manning, who, in hia 
Commentaries, thus teaches neutral duty : 

"It is no interference with the right of a third 
party to say that he shall not carry to my enemy 
instrument^ with which I am to be attacked. Such 
commerce is, on the other hand, a deviation from 
neutrality, or rather would be so if it were the act 
of a Slate and not of individuals."— J/awni/ip'* Law 
of Natione, p. 281. 

The distinction is obvious between what can 
be done by the individual and what can be 
done by the State. The individual may play 
the merchant and take the risk of capture; but 
the State cannot play the merchant in dealing 
with a belligerent. Of course if the foreign 
Power is at peace, there is no question ; but 
when the Power has become belligerent, then 
it is excluded from the market. So far as 
that Power is concerned all sales must be 
suspended. The interdict is peremptory and 
absolute. In such a case there can be no sale 
knowingly without mixing in the war, precisely 
as France mixed in the war of our Revolution 
in those muskets sent by the witty Beaumar- 
chais, which England resented by open war. 

And this undoubted principle of Interna- 



tional Law is recognized by the Secretary of 
War, when he directed the Chief of Ordnance 
not to entertain any bids from E. Remington 
& Sons, who had stated that they were agents 
of the French Government. In giving these 
orders he only followed the rule of duty on 
which the country can stand without, question 
or reproach ; but it remains to be seen whether 
persons under him did not content them- 
selves with obeying the order in letter only — 
breaking it in spirit. I assume that the order 
■was given in good faith. Was it obeyed in good 
faith? Here we start with the admitted postulate 
that it was wrong to sell arms to France. 

But if this cannot be done directly, it is idle 
to say that it can be done indirectly without a 
violation of good fulih. If it cannot be done 
openly, it cannot be done privily. If it can- 
not be done above-board, it caimot be done 
clandestinely. It is idle to reject the bid of 
the open agent of a belligerent Power and 
then at once accept the bid of another who 
may be a mere man of straw, unless after 
careful inquiry into his real character. 

Notiiing can be cleirerthan the duty of the 
proper officers to consider all bids in the sun- 
ligiit (if the conspicuous events then passing. 
A tertilile war was convulsing the Old World. 
Two mighty nations were in conflict, one of 
which was already prostrate and disarmed. 
Meanwliile came bids for arms and war mate- 
rial, on a gg^niic scale — on a scale absolutely 
unprecedented. Plainly these powerful bat- 
teries, these muskets by the hundred thou- 
sand and these cartiiilges by the million were 
for tiie (lisiirmed belligerent and nobody else. 
It was impossible not to spe it. It is insulting 
to common sense to imagine it otherwise. 
Who else could need arms and war material 
to the amount of $4,000,000 at once? Now, 
it appears by the dispatches of the French j 
consul general at New York, which I find in | 
an official document, that on the 22d Octo- 
ber, lb70, he telegraphed to the armament 
commission at Tours: 

"The prices of adjudication havR been lOD.OOO 
muskets :it «9 30; 40,000 at 812 30; 100,000 at $12 25; 
6O;000 0O0 c.irtridges .at $16 30 tho thousand. Alto- 
gether will) the cominisgion to Retninsrton and the 
incideutul expenses more than four uiilliou dollars." 

Saoh gi'^antic purchases made at one time 
or in the space of a few days could have but 
one destination. It is weakness to imagine 
otherwise. Obviously, plainly, unquestion- 



ably, they were for the disarmed belligerent. 
The telegraph each morning proclaimed the 
constant fearful struggle, and we all became 
daily spectators. In the terrible blaze, filling 
the heavens with lurid flame, it was impossible 
not to see the exact condition of the two bel- 
ligerents — Germany always victorious, France 
still rallying for the desperate battle. But 
the officials of the Ordnance Bureau saw this 
as plainly as the people. Therefore were they 
warned, so that every applicant for arms and 
war material on a large scale was open to just 
suspicion. These officials were put on their 
guard as much as if a notice or caveat had 
been filed at the War Department. In neg- 
lecting that commanding notice, in overruling 
that unprecedented caccat, so far as to allow 
these enormous supplies to be forwarded to 
the disarmed belligerent, they failed in that 
proper care required by the occasion. If I 
Said that they failed in good faiih, I should 
only give the conclusion of law on unquestion- 
able facts. 

In the case of the Santissima Trinidad, 
Chief Justice Marshall, after exposing an at- 
tempt to evade our neutral obligations by aa 
ingenious cover, exclaimed in words which 
he borrowed from an earlier period of our 
history, but which have been often quoted 
since, '-This would, indeed, be a fraudulent 
neutrality, disgraceful to our Government and 
of which no nation would be the dupe." (7 
Wheaton Reports, 337. ) I forbear at present 
to apply these memorable words, which show 
with what indignant language our great Chief 
Justice blasted an attempt to eva ie our neutral 
obligations. In calling it fraudulent be was 
not deterred by the petty cry of a filse patri- 
otism that his judgment might affect the good 
name of our country. Full well he knew that 
national character could suffer only where 
fraud is maintained. 

I doubt much if the true rule can be laid 
down in better words than those I quoted on a 
former occasion from the S|)ani.ih minister at 
Stockholm, denouncing the !<ale of the Swed- 
ish frigates. {Martens, Causes C^l^br^s, nou- 
velle series, l^om. \\, p. — ) He protested 
against '"arms and muni ions supplied through 
intermediate speculators, undf-r pretense of 
ignoring the result," whicli he exhibited aa 
"an actof hostility " and a '"political scandal." 
According to this excellent protest the sale is 



not protected from condemnation, merely by 
"intermediate speculators," and "the pre- 
tense of ignoring the result." And this is only 
according to undoubted reason. It is simply a 
question of good faith, and if, taking into view 
the circumstances of the case and the condi- 
tion of the times, there is reasonable ground 
to believe that "intermediate speculators" 
are purchasing for a belligerent, then the sale 
cannot be made; nor will any pretense of 
ignoring the result be of avail. 

In harmony with this Spanish protest is 
the calm statement of a joint committee of 
Congress, where this question of international 
duty is treated wisel,r. 1 read from the report 
of Mr. Jenckes on the sale of certain iron- 
clads: 

"Perhaps the international feature of this trans- 
action is the most grave one for the consideration of 
Congress. It is a matter of notorious public history 
that war was being carried on in the years 1865 and 
1866 between tho Government of Spain on the one 
hand and the Governments of Peru and Chili on the 
other. During the pendencyof hostilities, applica- 
tions were made to obtain possession of these ves- 
sels for one of the belligerents. If the Government 
of the United States had been privy to any arrange- 
ment by which these vessels of war should be deliv- 
ered to the agents of a belligerent, either in our own 
ports or upon the high seas, it would certainly have 
violated its international obligations. Of course, 
when Congress authorized the sale of these vessels, 
it was kuown that individuals had no use for them ; 
yet it might have assumed, as in the case of the 
Dunderberg and theOnondaga"— 

Now mark the words, if you please — 

"that the Executive Department would take care 
that any individual, who should purchase with a 
view to a resale to some foreign Power, would not 
be permitted to violate the obligations of the United 
States as a neutral nation." — Reports of Committees 
House of Representatives, 1867-68, No. 64, p. 5. 

Observe, if you please, the language em- 
l)loyed. If the Government of the United 
States had been " privy " to any arrangement 
for the delivery of these vessels to the agents 
of a belligerent, it would certainly have vio- 
lated its inteniational obligations. This is 
imdoubtedly correct. Then comes the assump- 
tion "that the Executive Department would 
take care that any individual who should pur- 
chase with a view to a resale to some foreign 
J^ower, would not be permitted to violate the 
obligations of the United States as a neutral 
nation." Here again is the true rule. The 
Executive is bound to take care that there 
shall be no sale with a view to a resale in. vio- 
lation of neutral duties. 

All this is so e'ntirely reasonable, indeed, so 
absolutely essential to the simplest perform- 
ance of international duty, that I feel humbled 



even in stating it. The case is too clear. It 

is like arguing the ten commandments or the 
multiplication table. International law is noth- 
ing but international morality for the guidance 
of nations. And be assured, sir, that inter- 
pretation is the truest which subjects the nation 
most completely to the moral law. "Thou 
shalt not sell arms to a belligerent," is a com- 
mandment addressed to nations, and to be 
obeyed precisely as that other commandment, 
"Thou shalt not steal." No temptation of 
money, no proffer of cash, no chink of the 
almighty dollar, can excuse any departure 
from this supreme law; nor can any inter- 
vening man of straw have any other effect 
than to augment the offense by the shame of a 
trick. 

Here, sir^ I am sensitive for my country. I 
can imagine no pecuniary profits, no millions 
poured into the Treasury, that can compensate 
for a depanure from that international honesty 
which is at onco the best policy and the highest 
duty. The dishonesty of a nation is illimitable 
in its operation. How true are the words: 

" 'Twill be recorded for a precedent ; 
And many an error, by the same example. 
Will rush into the State : it cannot be." 

The demoralization is felt not at home only. 
Whatever any nation does is an example for 
other nations; whatever the great Republic 
does is a testimony. I would have that testi- 
mony pure, lofty, just, so that we may wel- 
come it when commended to ourselves; so 
that, indeed, it may be a glorious landmark 
in the history of civilization. 

Therefore, do I insist that international obli- 
gations, especially when war is raging, eanuot 
be evaded, cannot be slighted, cannot be trifled 
with. They are not only sacred, they are sacro- 
sanct; and whoso lays hands en them, 
whoso neglects them, whoso closes his eyes to 
their violation, is guilty of a dishonesty which, 
to the extent of its influence, must weaken 
public morals at home, while it impairs the 
safeguards of peace with other nations and 
sets ajar the very gates of war. 

This question cannot be treated with levity 
and waved out of sight by a doubtful story. 
Even if Count Bismarck, adapting himself to 
the situation and anxious to avoid additional 
controversy, had declared in conversation that 
he would take these arms on the banks of the 
Loire, this is no excuse for us. Our rule of 



duty is not found in the courageous g^ vy 
of any foreign statesman, but in the law of 
nations, which we are bound to obey, not only 
for the sake of others, but for the sake of our- 
selves. All other nations may be silent; 
Count Bismarck may be taciturn ; but we can- 
not afford to cry " Hush." The evil example 
must be cortected, and the more swiftly the 
better. 

On this simple statement of International 
Law, it is evident that there must be inquiry 
to see if, through the misfeasance of officials, 
our Government has not in some way failed 
to comply with its neutral duties. Subordin- 
ates in England are charged with allowing 
the escape of the Alabama. Have any sub- 
ordinates among us played a similar part ? It 
is of subordinates that I speak. Has the Gov- 
ernment suffered through them ? Has their mis- 
feasance, their jobbery, their illicit dealing, 
compromised our country? Is there any ring 
about the Ordnance Bureau through which our 
neutral duties have been set at naught? Here 
I might stop without proceeding further. 
The question is too grave to be blinked out 
of sight. It must be met on the law and the 
facts. 

In this presentation I do not argue. The 
case requires a statement only. Beyond this 
I point to the honorable example which our 
country has set in times past. The equity 
with which we have discharged our neutral 
obligations has been the occasion of constant 
applause. Mr. Ward, the accomplished his- 
torian of the Law of Nations, and also of a 
treatise on the " Rights and Duties of Bellig- 
erent and Neutral Powers," which Chancellor 
Kent says "has exhausted all the law and learn- 
ing applicable to the question," wrote in 1801, 
four years after Washington's retirement : 

" Of the great trnding nations, America is almost 
tho only one that has shown consistency of princi- 

51e. The firmness and thorough understanding of the 
law of Nations which during this war [tho French 
Revolution] she has displayed, must forever rank 
lier high in the scale of enlightened communities."— 
Ward's liishts and Duties, page 166. 

Another English writer. Sir Robert Philli- 
more, author of the comprehensive work on 
International Law, speaks of the conduct of 
the United States as, " under the most trying 
circumstances, marked not only by perfect 
consistency, but by preference for right and 
duty over interest and the expediency of the 



moment." (Commentaries on International 
Law, Vol. Ill, page 282.) Then again, in 
another place the same English authority, 
after a summary of our practice and jurispru- 
dence in seizing and condemning vessels cap- 
tured in violation of neutrality, declares: 

" In these doctrines, a severe but ajwit conception 
of the duties and rights of neutrality appears to be 
embodied."— y6jW, page 427. 

An excellent French writer on International 

Law, Baron de Cussey, after mentioning our 

course with reference to a German war- vessel, 

says : 

"It affords a genuine proof of respect for the obli- 
gations of neutrality." — Phases et Causes Celebris. 
Tome II, page 407. 

American loyalty to neutral duties received 
the homage of the eminent orator and states- 
man, Mr. Canning, who, from his place in 
Parliament, said : 

" If I wished for a guide in a system of neutrality, 
I should take that laid down by America in the 
days of the Presidency of Washington and the sec- 
retaryship of Jefferson." — Hansard, Parliamentary 
Debates. April 16, 1823, volume VIII., New Series, 
page 1056. 

These testimonies may be fitly concluded 
by the words of Mr. Rush, so long our minis- 
ter in England, who records with just pride 
the honor accorded to our doctrines on neu- 
tral duties: 

"They are doctrines that will probably receive 
more and more approbation from all nations, astirao 
goes on. and continues to bring with it, as we may 
reasonably hope, further meliorations of the codeof 
war. They are as replete with international wisdom 
as with American dignity and spirit." * * * * 
" Come what may in the future, we can never be de- 
prived of this inheritance. It is a proud and splendid 
inheritance." — Mush's Occasional Productions, pages 
164, 176, 177. 

Such is the great and honest fame already 
achieved by our Republic in upholding neutral 
duties. No victory in our history has con- 
ferred equal renown. Surely you are not 
ready to forget the precious inheritance. No, 
sir, let us guard it as one of the best posses- 
sions of our common country : guard it loy- 
ally, so that it shall continue without diminu- 
tion or spot. Here there must be no backward 
step. Not backward, but forward, must be 
our watchword in the march of civilization. 

I am now brought to that other branch of 
the subject which concerns directly the con- 
duct of our officials ; and here my purpose is 
to simplify the question. Therefore I shall 
avoid details, which have occupied the Senate 



10 



for days ; and I put aside the apparent dis- 
crepancy between the annual report of the War 
Department and the annual report of the Treas- 
urer, which has been satisfactorily explained 
on this floor, so that this ground of inquiry is 
removed. I bring the case to certain heads, 
■which, taken together in their mass, make it 
impossible for us to avoid inquiry, without 
leaving the Government or some of its officials j 
exposed to serious suspicion. Now, as at the 
beginning, I make no accusation against any 
officer of our Government; none against the 
President ; none against the Secretary of War. 
But I exhibit reasons for the present proceed- 
ing. 

The ca=e naturally opens with the resolution 
of the commiitee of the French Assembly, 
asking tlie United States to furnish " the result 
of the inquiry into the conduct of American 
officials who were suspected of participating in 
the purchase of arms for the French Govern- 
ment during the war." This seems to have 
been adopted as late as February 9th last past. 
At least it, appears in the cable dispatch of that 
date. For this resolution three things are 
manifest: first, that the sale of arms by our 
Government is occupying the attention of the 
French Legii-lature ; secondly, that American 
officials are suspected of participating in the 
purchase for the French Government ; and 
thirdly, that it is supposed that our Govern- 
ment has instituted an inquiry into the case. 

This resolution is, I believe, without pre- 
cedent. I recall no other instance where a 
foreign legi:^lalive assembly has made any 
inquiry into the conduct of the officials of 
anoiher country. If this were done in an 
inimical or even critical spirit, it might, per- 
haps, be dismissed with indifference. But 
France, once in our history an all-powerful 
ally, is now a friendly Power, with which 
we are in the best relations. Any movement 
on hf-r part with regard to the conduct of our 
officials must be r^ceived according to tlie 
rules of comity and good-will. It cannot be 
disregarded. It ought to be anticipated. This 
resoluiion alone would justify inquiry on our 
pan. 

Passing to evidence, I come to the tele- 
graphic dispatch of Squire, son-in-law and 
ageut of Remington, actually a,ddre3sed in 



French cypher to the latter in France, nnde* 
date of October 8, 1870. Though brief it is 
most important. 

" We possess the strongegt influences, working for 
us, which will use all their efforts to succeed." 

Considerimg the writer of this dispatch, his 
family and business relations with Remington, 
to whom it was addressed, it is difficult to re- 
gard it except as a plain revelation of actual 
facts. It was important that Remington should 
know the precise condition of things. His son- 
in-law and agent telegraphs that "the strong- 
est influences" are at work for them. What 
can this mean? Surely here is no broker or 
arms merchant, engaged in the course of busi- 
ness. It is something else — plainly something 
else. What? That is the point for inquiry. 
Mr. Squire is an American citizen. Let him 
be examined and cross-examined, under oath. 
Let him disclose what he meant by " the strong- 
est influences." He could not have intended 
to deceive his father-in-law, and puff himself. 
He was doubtless in earnest. Did he deceive 
himself? On this he is a witness. But until 
those words are so far explained as to show 
that they do not point to officials, the natural 
inference is that it was on them that he re- 
lied — that they were the " strongest, influences" 
through which the job was to be carried through: 
for, of course, it was a job which he an- 
nounced. 

It cannot be doubted that this dispatch of 
Mr. Squire by itself alone is enough to justify 
inquiry. Without the resolution of the French 
Assembly, and without the supplementary tes- 
timony to be adduced, it throws a painful sus- 
picion upon our officials, which should compel 
them to explain. 

But the It-tter of Mr. Remington, already 
adduced, canies this suspicion still further, 
by adding his positive testimony that he dealt 
with the Government. Before referring again 
to this testimony, it is important to consider 
the character of the witness ; and here we have 
the authentication of the Secretary of War, 
who has recommended and indorsed bim, in a 
formal paper to be used in France. O'hers 
may question the statements of Mr. Reming- 
ton, but no person speaking for the Secretary 

will hesitate to accept them. It' the testimony 
of the Secretary needed support, it would be 

found ui the open dec'arations on this floor by 

the Senator from New York, [Mr. Coxkuyg,] 



11 



and in the following letter which the Senator 
dated from the Senate Chamber, during the 
recess, when notoriously the Senate was not 
in session : 

Skxatk Chambek, 
Washington, D. C, November 17, 1871. 

My Dear Sir: I learn with surprise that your 
personal and commerfiiil situation and the Rood 
name of the hous" of Remington it Sons have been 
questioned. Having known your father and sons for 
many yen rs, having lived within a stone-throw, so 
to say, of your house for a number of years, and 
being one of the Senators of your State. I cannot 
hesitate to give you my testimony relative to the 
accusations that have, as has been told me, been 
brought against you in France. 

As to what concerns personal situation, importance 
of affairs, success, solvency, wealth, and fidelity to 
the Govcrnmeut of the United States, your house 
has for a long time occupied a front rank, not only 
in the State of New York, but also in the Union. 

The allegation that you lack experience as a man- 
ufacturer of arms, or in anything that can, as a man 
of business, entitle you to respect, is, I can affirm in 
all sincerity, destitute of foundation, and must pro- 
ceed from ignorance or malignity. 

Sincerely, your obedient servant. 

ROSCOE CONKLING. 
Mr. Samuel Remixgton. 

Thus does the Senator from New York vouch 
for the "good name" of Mr. Remington. 

Thus introduced, thus authenticated, and 
thus indorsed, Mr. Remington cannot be re- 
jected as a witness, especially when he writes 
an official letter to the chairman of the French 
Armament Commission at Tours. You already 
'know something of that lelter, dated at New 
York, December 13, 1870. My present object 
is to show how, while announcing his large 
purchases of batteries, arms, and cartridges, 
he speaks of dealing with Government always, 
and not even with any intermediate agent. 

Mr. CONKLING." Will the Senator allow 
me there one moment, as he has referred to 
me? 

Mr. SUMNER. Certainly. 

Mr. CONKLING. He is engaged at this 
point, if I understand him aright, in support- 
ing Mr. Remington in his character, and as the 
document from which he made the translation 
ot my letter also contains stronger fortilica- j 
tion in aid of the Senator and of Mr. Reming- 
ton, 1 beg to call attention toil. The Senator 
might reler not only to my letter, but to let- 
ters written by Governor Hoffman, ex-Gov- 
ernor Horatio Seymour, Edwin D. Morgan, 
late a member of this body. General John A. 
Dix, not unknown here, and other citiz'^ns of 
the State of New York, who certify, I believe 
in somewhat stronger terms than those I em- 
ployed, to the probity and standing of Mr. 
Remington. 



Mr. SUMNER. I am obliged to the Sen- 
ator for the additional testimony that he bears. 
It only fortifies the authority of Mr. Reming- 
ton, which was my object. I took the liberty 
of introducing the letter of the Senator, be- 
cause he is among us, and had vouched for 
Mr. Remington personally. I gladly v/elcome 
the additional evidence which the Senator 
introduces. It is entirely in harmony with 
the case that I am presenting. I wish to show 
how Mr. Remington was regarded by the Sen- 
ator, by the Secretary of War, and by other 
distinguished citizens, so that when he writes 
an official letter to the chairman of the arms 
committee of Tours he cannot be rejected as 
a witness. 

The letter is long, and early in it the writer 
alludes to a credit from Fiance and certain 
instructions with regard to it, saying: 

"This we could not do, as a considerable portion 
had been already paid out to the Government." 

Then coming to the purchase of breech- 
loading Springfield muskets, he writes: 

"The Government has never made but about sev- 
enty-tive thousand all told, and forty thousand is 
the greatest number tlicu think it prudent to upare." 

In order to increase) he number he proposed 
an exchange of his own, and here hi says: 

"Thisrinestionof an exchange with th'-very/j-iendlv 
fedliig I find cxinting to aid trance, I hope to be able 
to procure more." 

Where was the "very friendly feeling exist- 
ing to aid France? " Not among merchants, 
agents, or brokers. This would hnrdly justify 
the important declaration with regird to a 
feeling which was so efficacious? 

Then comes the question of cartridges, and 

here the dpalings with the Government become 

still more manifest: 

" Cartridges for these forty thousand will inagreat 
measure require to he made, as the Government have 
butabout three millions on hand, lial the Govern- 
ment has consented to allow the requisite number, 
four hundred for each gun, to be made, and the 
cartridge works here had orders given yesterday to 
increase production to the full capacity of works." 

Observe here, if you please, the part per- 
formed by the Government, not only its con- 
sent to the manufacture, but the promptitude 
of this consent. This was not ea-iily accom- 
ptislied, as the well indorsed witness t"s ifies : 

"This question of making thecartridg*esatfAe(7o»- 
crnment works was a difficult one to got over. Bat it 
is done." 

Naturally difficult; bjt theagent of Prance 

overc;ime ail obstacles. Then as to price: 

" The price the Government will chare-e for tho Kuns 



12 



and cartridges will bo , or as near that as pos- 
sible." 

Always tbe Government I Then comes 

another glimpse : 

"The forty thousand guns cannot all be shipped 
immediately, ns they are distributed in the various 
arsenals through the country." 

That is, the Government arsenals. 

Then appears one of our officials on the 

scene : 

" The Chief of Ordnance thinks it may take twenty 
to thirty days before all could be brought in." 

Then again the witness reports : 

" The Chief of Ordnance estimntos the cost of the 
arms. includiiiK boxinp: and expense of freight to 
bring tbem to New York, at S-0 GO ourrency." 

Then, as to the harness: 

" Th^ Government have not full complete seta to 
the extent of twenty-five hundred after selling the 
number required for fifty batteries." 

Always the Government I 

Then, after mentioning that some parts of 

the harness are wanting, he says: 

" I have made arrangements to have this defi- 
ciency made good by either the Government or by 
outside persons." 

But the Government does all it can : 

"In mean time the Government huve ordered the 
harness to be scnthere immediately." 

Then at the close the witness says : 

"I forgot to say f?ie Government have no Spencer 
rifles, having never had buta small number, and all ^ 
of these you have bought." 

And he adds that " they have from three to 
four thousand .transformed Springfields, " 
which he " may think tit to take after exatn- 
ination,^' showing again liis intimate dealings 
with the Government. 

Such is the testimony of Mr. Remington, 
the acknowledged agent of France. It i.i im- 
possible to read these repeated allusions to 
"the Government" and the "Chief of Ord- 
nance," without feeling that the witness was 
dealing directly in this quarter. If there was 
any middle- man he was of straw only ; but a 
man of straw is nobody. If Mr. Remington's 
character were not vouched so completely; 
if he did not appear on authentic testimony so 
entirely above any misrepresentation ; if he 
were not elevated to be the model arms dealer, 
this letter, with its numerous averments of re- 
lations with the Government, would be of less 
significancfe. But how can these be denied or 
explained without impeaching this witness ? 

But Mr. Remington is not without import- 
ant support in his allegations. His French 
correspondent, M. Le Gesne, chairman of the 



armament committee, has testified in opea 
court that the French dealt directly with the 
Government. He may have been mistaken ; 
but his testimony shows what he understood 
to be the case. The Senator from Missouri 
has already called attention to this testimony, 
which he cited from a journal enjoying great 
circulation on the European continent, V lnd4- 
pendance Beige. The Senator from Vermont, 
[Mr. Edmunds,] not recognizing the character 
of this important journal, distrusted the report. 
But this testimony does not depend upon that 
journal alone. I have it in another journal, 
Le Courrierdes Etats C7?ws of October 27, 1871, 
evidently copied from a Parisian journal, prob- 
ably one of the law journals, where it is given 
according to the formal report of a trial with 
question and answer. 

" The Presiding Judge. Did not this indemnity of 
25 cents represent certain material expenses, certain 
disbursements, incidental expenses? 

" M. Le Cetne. We could not admit these oxpcnsos, 
for we had an enangem.ent loith the Amerix-nn Federal 
Government, which had undertaken to deliver free on 
board all the arms on account of France." 

Now, I make no comment on this testimony 
except to remark that it is in entire harmony 
with the letter of Mr. Remington, and that 
beyond all doubt it was given in open court 
under oath, and duly reported in the trial, so 
as to become known generally in Europe. 
The position of Mr. Le Cesne gave it anthor- 
iiy, for beside his recent experience as chair- 
man of the arms committee, he is known as 
a former representative in the Assembly from 
the large town of Havre, and also a resident 
for twenty years in the United States. In con- 
firmation of the value attached to this testi- 
mony I mention that my attention was first 
directed to it by Hon. Gustavus Koerner, 
of Illinois, minister of the United States at 
Madrid under President Lincoln. 

To this cumulative testimony I add that 
already supplied by our minister ar, Berlin, 
under date of January 7, 1871, and published 
by the Department of State, where it is dis- 
tinctly said that "recently rifled cannon 
and ammunition have been furnished to the 
French in enormous quantities, not, oidy by 
private American traders, but bi/ the War 
Department at Washington.^'' Tliis I have 
already adduced under another head. It is 
mentioned now to show how the public knowl- 
edge of Europe was in harmony wlih the other 
evidence. 

'J'iierc is another piece of testimony, which 



13 



serves to quicken suspicion. It ia already 
\ admitted by Ihe Secretary of War, that after 
refusing Mr. Remington because he was an 
agent of France, bids were accepted from 
Thomas Richardson, who was in point of fact 
an attorney-atlaw at Ilion, and agent and 
attorney of Mr. Remington. But the course 
of Mr. Remington, and his relations with this 
country attorney, are not without official illus- 
tration. Since this debate began 1 have re- 
ceived a copy of a law journal of Paris, Le 
Droit, Journal des Tribunaux, of January 
18, 1872, containing the most recent judicial 
proceedings against the French consul gen- 
eral at New York. Here I find an official 
report from the acting French consul there, 
addressed to the French Minister of Foreign 
Affairs under daie of August 25, 1871, where 
a fact is described which was authenticated at 
the consulate, being an affidavit or deposition 
before a notary, by a clerk of Mr. Remington, 
on which the report remarks: 

"This declaration establishing that this manufac- 
turer caused the books of his house to be recopied 
three times, aud in doing so altered the original 
form." 

The report adds : 

" It is in this document that mention is made of 
the character, I might say criminal, which the 
nnrae of Rich;irdson appears to have assumed in the 
affairs of Mr. Remington." 

After remarking that the witness who has 
thus testified has exposed himself to the pen- 
alties of perjury, being several years of impris- 
onment, the report proceeds: 

"You see from this that the assertions of Mr. 
Remington Kive only two much of a glimpse at the 
most audacious frauds." 

Here is testimony tending at least to stim- 
ulate inquiry. Mr. Remington's books altered 
three times, and the name of Richardson play- 
ing a criminal part. I quote this from an 
official document, and leave it. 



Here, then, are six different sources of testi- 
mony all prompting inquiry : first, the resolu- 
tion of a committee of the French Assembly, 
showing suspicion of American officials; sec- 
ondly, the cable dispatch of Squire, son-in- 
law and agent of Mr. Remington, declaring 
that "we have the strongest influences work- 
ing for us. which will use all their efiforts to 
succeed;'" thirdly, the letter of Mr. Reming- 
ton, reporting in various forms, and repeti- 
tions, that he is dealing with the American 



Government; fourthly, the testimony of M. 
Le Cesne, the chairman of the French arma- 
ment committee, made in open court and 
under oath, that the French had an engage- 
ment with the American Federal (jrovern- 
ment, which had undertaken to deliver free on 
board all thearras on account of France ; fiflhly, 
the positive declaration of the London Times 
in the face of Europe, and reported by our 
minister at Berlin, that, rifled cannon and am- 
munition had been furnished to the French in 
enormous quantities by the War Department 
at Washington; and sixthly, the testimony of 
a clerk of Mr. Remington authenticated by the 
French consul general at Nei^York, that Mr. 
Remington had altered his books three limes, 
and also .-^peakingof the criminal character of 
Richardson in the affairs of Mr. Remington. 
On this cumulative and concurring testimony 
from six different sources, is it not plain that 
there must be inquiry? The Senate cannot 
afiord to close its eyes. The resolution of the 
committee of the French Assembly alone 
would be enough ; but reenforced as it is from 
so many different quarters, the case is irre- 
sistible. Not to inquire is to set at defiance all 
rules of decency aud common sense. 

To these successive reasons, I add the evi- 
dence, which has been much discussed, show- 
ing a violation of the statute authorizing the 
sale of "the old cannon, arms, and other 
ordnance stores now in possession of the War 
Department which are damaged or otherwise 
unsuitable for the United States military ser- 
vice or for the militia of the United States" — 
inasmuch as stores were sold which were not 
"damaged" or "otherwise unsuitable." I 
tliink no person can have heard the debate 
without admitting that here at least is some- 
thing for careful investigation. The Senator 
from Missouri has already exposed this appar- 
ent dereliction of duty, which in its excess 
ended in actually disarming the country, so 
as to impair its defensive capacity. Otie of 
the crimes of the Cabinet of Mr. Buchanan on 
the eve of the Rebellion was that the North 
had been disarmed. It is important to con- 
sider whether, in the strange greed for money 
or in the misfeasance of subordinates .some- 
thing similar was not done when good arms 
were sold to France. The Chief of Ordnance, 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

■fii 

013 789 494 4 



LIBRAF 



0( 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

llillll 

013 789 494 4 f 



pH8^ 



